PAG. 215.

PAG. 197.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEXUALITY IN ELDERS LIVING ALONE IN A SAMPLE OF NON-INSTITU- TIONALIZED PEOPLE

Peer reviewing instructions for Acta Medica Mediterranea

Introduction

The primary aims of peer review are to decide whether or not an article should be published (based
on quality and relevance to the journal), and to improve the article before publication. All
submissions first go through an internal peer review process: an assigned editor makes an initial
decision to accept or to reject the manuscript (e.g. topic is outside the scope of the Journal,
important flaws in scientific validity, etc). If the editor believes the article may be of interest, it is
sent out for external peer review. The reviewers are selected by area of expertise (reviewers who
grant high quality reviews within the requested time are preferred). The editorial board is frequently
consulted. Once reviews are obtained, the editor makes a judgment considering the critiques and
recommendations from reviewers, and other factors such as relevance to the Journal’s aims and
usefulness to clinicians or researchers.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their background and experience in some aspect of the subject.
The most desirable reviewers identify the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted paper, and
analyze it from different viewpoints. The peer reviewers are asked to read and analyze the assigned
manuscript and provide a written opinion of its quality, novelty, relevance and suitability for
publication in Acta Medica Mediterranea. Peer reviewers also make suggestions to assist the
authors in improving the article. Reviewers must not only analyze and comment on the paper, but
also provide opinions about general concerns such as clarity and quality of the writing, validity of
scientific approach, and whether the article provides new information.

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Peer Reviewers

When a selected individual accepts a peer reviewing assignment, the reviewer implicitly agrees to
the ethical standards that are commonly accepted in biomedical publishing. Ethical guidelines for
reviewers, authors, and editors are reported by the International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors in the ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals’ available
from: www.icmje.org.

Reviewers for Acta Medica Mediterranea must agree to:

Produce as careful and objective a review as possible

Respect the editor’s deadline.

Consider with an open mind innovations or approaches different from those of one’s own

Provide a balanced critique targeted not only to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the
paper, but also to provide useful feedback to the authors to improve their manuscript,
without being overly critical of minor points.

Avoid scientific misconduct such as the misappropriation of intellectual property. Each
manuscript should be treated as an extremely confidential document. The privacy of the
authors’ ideas must always be guaranteed.

Direct comments about ethical concerns confidentially to the editors. Contacting an author
with questions about the manuscript is not allowed. All critiques, including the latter, must
be reported in the written critique.

Declare any conflict of interest (real or perceived) identified to the editor before the end of
review. Not every potential conflict necessitates a rejection. Reviewers are encouraged to
discuss potential conflicts with the editors if they believe they can provide a fair review

Reject an assignment if the following conflicts are present: Financial interests (e.g. paid
consultancies, stock holdings), significant professional or personal relationships or rivalries,
antipathy toward study question/approach, political or special interest affiliations (e.g.
religious or deep convictions that conflict with the manuscript topic)

Reviewer Guidelines

Potential reviewers are contacted by E-mail, which contains the manuscript title, abstract, and
assignment deadline. The selected reviewer accepts or declines the assignment within 7 days.
Failure to reply within the prescribed time will be treated as an implicit rejection. It is acceptable to
propose an extended deadline when the given deadline (usually 4 weeks from the task acceptance
date) cannot be met. The selected reviewers usually have extensive experience as faculty members,
researchers, and published authors. Sometimes reviewers from other specific areas are selected.
This selection is always well thought-out, and we encourage such potential reviewers to consider
the assignment if they can make a contribution to some aspect of the work. The following points
must be provided by the reviewers in the written response:

General Overview

Organized Critique

Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses: the following should be evaluated: Literature
review is up-to-date; Methods align with study purpose or research questions; Methods
described in sufficient and appropriate detail; Research design or study approach is
adequate; Approach to data analysis is appropriate; Thoughtful consideration given to the
study limitations; Manuscript provides new information that is likely to be of interest to our
readers

After the peer review process has ended and an adequate number of reviews has been received, the
assigned editor makes the final decision about the manuscript (accept, invite a revision, or reject)
based on a consideration of all the reviewer comments, general critique, and other external factors
(e.g. the article is consistent with the Journal purpose, similar articles recently published, number of
accepted articles awaiting publication, potential impact of the article, etc.). Editors may consult with
each other when making the decision. A decision summarizing the opinions of editors and reviewers
will be sent to the corresponding author.